Translational research - possible to do without a bench lab?

[Step Up]

I'm interested to hear examples of types of research physician-scientists are doing without the responsibility of having their own basic science lab. I'm a clinical fellow, working on clinical and epidemiology research. However, I would love to pursue more translational/biologic research, as I think this will be especially important to obtain large grants and produce compelling research. I'm having trouble picturing what this will entail without the need for pure basic science research. It's not that I'm opposed to basic science research, I just think I'm too late in the game to develop into a truly good lab-based scientist.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[dl2dp2]

I'm interested to hear examples of types of research physician-scientists are doing without the responsibility of having their own basic science lab. I'm a clinical fellow, working on clinical and epidemiology research. However, I would love to pursue more translational/biologic research, as I think this will be especially important to obtain large grants and produce compelling research. I'm having trouble picturing what this will entail without the need for pure basic science research. It's not that I'm opposed to basic science research, I just think I'm too late in the game to develop into a truly good lab-based scientist.

You have this backward. Do you want to translational or do you want to do clinical/epidemiological? You don't do science because it'd produce "large grants". Large grants come from the necessity of these grants being needed to do the work you propose.

You need to figure out what you enjoy on a daily basis as opposed to what kind of projects produce grants. Also, it's not true that clinical/epidemiological research produces smaller grants, especially if it involves catch phrases like "Big Data". Also, IN GENERAL, single site clinical trials are more expensive than a similarly sized (by number of employee) basic science project. Similarly, typically in pharmaceutical contexts, clinical research is MORE expensive than preclinical research. And NIH now focuses more on large multisite trials, which typically involve very large grants. So basically all your assumptions are false, so we can't really even go on making recommendations.

The idea that it's "too late" to be a basic scientist has nothing to do with your actual age. It has more to do with how much money you need and how badly you want to change your life style. In the end, any one can be a basic biomedical scientist at any (reasonable) age. It's not really intellectually sophisticated enough to require you to be under 40 (unlike say pure math). The issue is mainly that entry level work in basic biomedical science pays extremely poorly on an hour by hour basis, and to advance in this path requires years of dedicated, repetitive, at times luck-driven filtering work. Your question misses important information. Are you independently wealthy? Do you have a family? Can your afford to transition and dedicate yourself to research for a number of years, with a potential risk that nothing might come of it?